Matt Yglesias comments on Barack Obama’s obviously false assertion that he never campaigned on the public option:
I think Obama could fairly say something like “for some activists, the public option may have been the centerpiece of health reform but it’s never been that for me and it wasn’t the heart of what I proposed during the campaign.” But he definitely did campaign saying he’d create one. I’m also really not sure why Obama would try to make consistency with campaign rhetoric a hallmark of his drive. He definitely campaigned against Hillary Clinton’s proposed individual mandate to buy health insurance and also attacked elements of John McCain’s health plan in terms that could easily be seen as inconsistent with the insurance excise tax concept.
Here’s what I don’t get. As near as I can tell, presidents pretty much never say things like this. They never concede a mixed bag on anything they’re associated with. The Iraq war was always going swimmingly. Welfare reform was an unqualified boon. Reagan never raised taxes. Etc. Likewise, Obama seems unwilling to admit that the healthcare reform that finally got spit out of Congress is anything other than exactly what he wanted all along.
I suppose the conventional wisdom is that whatever you end up with is something you have to sell to the American public, and the only way to sell anything successfully is to relentlessly claim it’s the greatest thing since Abraham Lincoln invented bifocals. So I guess my question is whether this is really true. Would it hurt Obama (or any president) to admit to a few modest reservations or problems while vigorously defending an overall initiative? Or is the conventional wisdom right, and the best offense is a good offense? Opinions?